How good are the Nets?</p> In the NBA, to be a good or great team requires 2, perhaps 3 characteristics. First and foremost a team needs a talented, balanced roster that can take advantage of the current NBA ruleset and matchup with the way other teams are constructed. Then, a team needs a coach who implements a system to take advantage of the talent. A third valuable feature is depth. However, the first characteristic is by far the most important and trumps the others. Two examples of the first principle are the recent San Antonio Spurs teams and this year the Boston Celtics. Boston is a particularly good example of the importance of the first: Garnett (talented offensive/defensive big), Pierce (slasher/scorer), Allen (premier shooter) with adequate role players, including a shooter (House), and a servicible center. To some Doc Rivers has gone from being considered a bad coach to a genius-- but the reality is that team construction is paramount as long as the coach is competent.</p> The current design of the Nets has the potential to be very good. Star quality two-way players at G, SG (Carter more offense, less defense than the others), and SF and a potential frontline of a good shot-blocker (Williams, but needs to develop) and a shooter/post player (Krstic). Potentially good backups at G (Williams), SF (Wright, Nachbar), PF/C (defense and rebounds: Collins and Magliore). However, the team is short good shooters, and could certainly use a small shooter off the bench.</p> Coach: L Frank is very good and stresses defense. Has shown ability to maximize output from team. Best example, stretch in 2005-6 late in the season where Nets destroyed Phoenix Suns on offense and defense and beat Miami in the first playoff game with little more than a 7 man lineup: Kidd, Jefferson, Carter, Collins, Krstic with Robinson and Vaughn. Pretty good balance of offense and defense. Great coaching. Biggest problem was lack of depth, loss of Robinson and injury to Jefferson severely impacted a very thin team. Each of the 7 were necessary for this team to achieve success.</p> Current team situation:</p> <u>Problems:</u></p> With injuries to Carter, key PG backup Williams and incomplete recovery of key bigman Krstic, Nets are at most a mediocre 0.500 team. There is a strong need on this team for shooters. Not all of the Net's players are familiar with the motion offense. Unfortunatley, success with this offense requires quite a bit of practice because of the flexibiity of this system (probably at least 8 weeks of NBA play), several good shooters and preferably a player who can draw double teams in the post. The Nets at the moment lack all three and it is not surprising that they are struggling and will continue to struggle. Coaching is good, but cannot solve current problems without increased balance that would come from the return of the injured players.</p> <u>Success requires:</u></p> Healthy Kidd, Jefferson, Carter, and Krstic</p> Development of M Williams and S. Williams</p> Playing Nachbar at SF</p> Adequate play from one of Collins, Magliore and Boone.</p> Shooter off the bench.</p> More familiarity with motion offense from all players.</p> Should these occur Nets will be very competitive with other Eastern Conference teams and depending on matchups and coaching can contend for the title.</p> At the moment, NJ should be considered overachieving if they can maintain 0.500 record.</p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p>
Hey DC welcome to S2! Shoot me a PM if you have any questions about the site.</p> Solid analysis right there, I agree with most of your points. I think towards the second half of december is when we'll know if we can no longer expect natural progression of our players and offense.</p>
Thanks GMJ.</p> Actually the Nets looked better in the Miami game than I expected. The high turnovers are a consequence of unfamiliarity with the new system, and Sean Williams is developing at a very unexpected pace. However, the Nets really could use a high percentage shooter off the bench, and they would win more close games even with the injuries if they had someone.</p> I'm also impressed with the flexibility of L Frank. He is showing he is capable of experimenting to find the right combinations of players, which goes against his usual conservative habits.</p> I'm very optimistic for the Nets chances to be competitive if the team can become and remain healthy, especially Kidd, Carter, Jefferson, S Williams and Krstic.</p>
Yeah, solid. What do you think of using the returning Marcus as a small shooter. You'd also have a complementary pairing with DA/MW.</p> or do you think someone like Hite or Houston would be better suited to fill the gap?</p>
What I was thinking, which sort of aligns with your posts, daly, is that we would've most certainly won with a 100% Krstic and VC. Especially on those last few plays. Firstly, Krstic would not have missed those free throws. And secondly, VC either would've had that last shot, or would have prevented RJ from getting so much defensive attention.</p> And I figured it woulda taken a while to get used to the motion offense, but everyone debunked my theory. And plus, I didn't really expect it to take THIS long. Although there were some beautiful plays, one in particular, where Collins set a perfect pick for Antoine to get open and cut to the basket, with a Kidd feed and open layup. And another one where Antoine was the passer (on the perimeter) and Sean was the finisher.</p> What do you think should happen until we get completely used to this new offense? Pick and rolls, in between some new-offense plays?</p> </p>
Right now, everything is falling apart when Kidd is not in the game. Armstrong has been unable to create anything, and Gill is just there to dribble up the court. Also, you haven't mentioned Wright, who has been very good with the exception of his first two games as a starter. Right now, I think that Kidd-Carter-RJ-Wright is a pretty good core, and good enough on both the offensive and defensive side to anchor a contending team. You just need another five players to fill the remaining roles. That includes: (1) a competent backup point; (2) another perimeter shooter off the bench; (3) an athletic big man that can score inside; and (4)two more big men that, in some combintation, can defend, score, and rebound. Marcus, Boki, Krstic, and Sean are four of the five, and a lot will hinge on their health and development over the course of the season. They can certainly fill the gaps if they live up to their potential. Sean has been wonderful so far, but you can't overstate just how bad Krstic and Boki have been. The last guy would of course be another big, whether it is Collins, Magloire, Boone, or Allen.</p>
Jerkstore,</p> Marcus will help. But I think we could really use a pure shooter. If Houston has really recovered he might be a good choice. He was never a really good defensive player, but his shot was near Ray Allen class. Who knows how long it would take him to get back to NBA shape and how loing he would hold up.</p>
